Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: hank_b Date: Jul 24, 2009 2:54pm
Forum: Americana Subject: Re: books catalogued incorrectly

Ron -

I'm having trouble finding the volume-number issues you described for "A Volume of records relating to the early history of Boston." I just looked at 6 or 8 of those items, and all of them had correct volume numbers. The text of each book begins with a sentence like "This volume, which is the thirty-eighth in the series..."; in all cases I checked, it matched the volume number we'd designated for the item.

You specifically mentioned volume 13, which I found at http://www.archive.org/details/reportrecordcom01masgoog . In that case, we got the volume number from Google's page for the book, but again, it appears to be correct. Do we have another copy of volume 13 under a different identifier that I missed?

I thought perhaps I wasn't finding the mistakes because the ones you reported via the "Report errors" link had already been fixed, but none of the books I checked seem to have been edited recently.

Can you provide a list here of item identifiers (like "reportrecordcom01masgoog") for the mistaken ones you've found? Then I can look into getting them fixed. Thanks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rlahti Date: Jul 24, 2009 3:21pm
Forum: Americana Subject: Re: books catalogued incorrectly

Greetings Hank,

First, thank you for the response!

I went into the archives and did a search for "early records boston".

The very first listing is listed as being volume 2, metadata follows:

[http://www.archive.org/details/recordsrelatingt02lcbost]

recordsrelatingt02lcbost
Ppi: 400
Camera: Canon 5D
Operator: scanner-stefaan-hurts@...
Scanner: scribe2.capitolhill.archive.org
Scandate: 20080717201501
Imagecount: 292
Identifier-access: http://www.archive.org/details/recordsrelatingt02lcbost
Identifier-ark: ark:/13960/t15m6c43w


If you open the volume and check it, the first obvious indicator is the dating of the volume: 1701-1715

Volume 2, properly, is dated 1877. What you have listed as Volume 2, in reality, is Volume 11.

A vast majority of the collections like this are not marked correctly. I have noticed the same issue, especially, in the google volumes... to a book, they are all ones handled/uploaded by user "tpb". I immediately suspect anything I find uploaded by this user.

Doing the search I listed above, produces 4 pages of volumes (IA and Google versions) for 39 volumes. Neiher set is complete by one or the other, so I had to go through each listed item, one and a time, and build the best set.

I discovered all this after downloading what I thought was a complete set and then having to delete over half of them and start searching through them one at a time to locate the correct ones.

As a side question: I am a retired Professor of Genealogy. Is their anything I can do from here to assist you in reorganizing or correcting these issues I locate? I love what you all are doing and I have a serious passion for what you offer... I deal with ancient records and archives all the time. I have even gone to the point of a dedicated drive on my personal system, that I have used a library catalouging system on to redo the volumes I have gotten from you all.

Feel free to call me. (508) 216-5764.

I have tried to call the archives, but never seem to get anyone. Poor timing here :)

I hope this helps. If not, I can get more specific. I have a complete set of this series, properly labelled and catalouged if it will help.

Dr. Ronald Lahti, M.A., D.A., P.A.
Professor of Genealogy/History

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hank_b Date: Jul 24, 2009 10:46pm
Forum: Americana Subject: Re: books catalogued incorrectly

Hi, Ron. I've changed the volume for item recordsrelatingt02lcbost from 2 to 11. Perhaps I was lucky with the spot checking I did earlier today - as I said, all of the 8 or so I checked were correct, but this one clearly was not.

For the books that were scanned by Google, our knowledge of the volume info comes from Google's page for the book. If what's there is wrong, there's no way for us to know that, short of manually checking each book, and that's not feasible for us, given the number of books involved.

Which brings us to your offer to help. I'm sorry you've had trouble reaching anyone who could respond to your kind offer. I'll put you in touch with Anna Naruta, our Manager of Collections; you and she can then figure out how best to integrate volunteer labor into collections management.

-- Hank

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rlahti Date: Jul 24, 2009 11:31pm
Forum: Americana Subject: Re: books catalogued incorrectly

Thank you, Hank.

I would be glad to go through that mess and sort out which is which for you if you like. I cannot do it today, but can get it started when I return tonight.

I went back through and on a quick glance, found a dozen or more that were bad. You actually have several repeats in there and some are in pretty rough shape. It might be wise to gather one good set of volumes and then clear some others that are not necessary. I am sure you all keep backups of the collection. This would not only assist people trying to locate the volumes, but save you massive storage space as well.

Mind you now, this is not the only collection. There was one that was such a mess, I actually used the "review" field and labelled the volumes correctly. I find it primarily in the colonial records collections of New England (which is my home and research specialty area). I probably notice this faster than most due to my actually using the original volumes so often.

I look forward to hearing from you folks and am willing to offer whatever services I may to you!

My compliments for undertaking such a phenomenal task. With the current wave of record destruction taking place in some states, I praise your archiving function heavily.

Take care and see you on the next run.

Ron